Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 1, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004193

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Broccolini HLS Limited Partnership

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Purpose: To permit 48-storey and 59-storey mixed use buildings

Property Address: 47-65 Huntley Street, 1-11 Selby Street and 2-18, 24 and 26 Linden Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 21 227527 STE 13 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004193

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004193

OLT Case Name: Broccolini HLS Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Broccolini HLS Limited Partnership

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Purpose: To permit 48-storey and 59-storey mixed use buildings

Property Address: 47-65 Huntley Street, 1-11 Selby Street and 2-18, 24 and 26 Linden Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 21 227527 STE 13 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004194

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004193

Heard: October 26, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Broccolini HLS Limited Partnership (the “Appellant”) D. Bronskill (in absentia) M. Laskin

City of Toronto (the “City”) S. O’Connor U. Gautam

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON OCTOBER 26, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeals to the Tribunal of the City’s failure to make a decision within the statutory time period on an application for an Official Plan Amendment to the City’s Official Plan (the “OPA Appeal”) and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law (the “ZBL Appeal”) to permit the redevelopment of certain lands bounded by Huntley Street, Selby Street and Linden Street with 2 buildings being 48-storey and a 59-storey mixed use buildings. As detailed below, the municipal addresses of the specific properties that are the subject of the OPA Appeal and the ZBL Appeal are unclear and will require clarification at the second Case Management Conference scheduled pursuant to this Order.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

2Catherine Berthiaume – Ms. Berthiaume appeared at this CMC requesting Party status in these proceedings. Ms. Berthiaume stated that she is the owner of the properties municipally known as 20 and 22 Linden Street and resides at 20 Linden Street. Ms. Berthiaume referred to concerns regarding the potential land use planning impacts of the proposed development including traffic and to the existing character of the neighbourhood. Ms. Berthiaume stated that she is familiar with, and would undertake to fulfill, the role and responsibilities of a party in Tribunal proceedings. Ms. Berthiaume stated that she intends to retain counsel and, depending upon legal advice from counsel, may call witnesses to provide evidence in the subject proceedings. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms. Berthiaume is raising genuine land use planning issues regarding the proposed redevelopment and, on consent of the other parties, the Tribunal granted Party status to Ms. Berthiaume.

3The following persons also attended the CMC either on their own behalf, or by their representatives, to request Participant Status in the subject proceedings:

(a) Bloor Street East Neighbourhood Association (the “BSNA”) – Linda Brett attended this CMC and stated that she is the President and the Director of the BSNA. Ms. Brett provided certification in the Participant request form that she has written authorization to act as a representative of the BSNA. Ms. Brett indicated that the boundaries of the BSNA are to the north and west of the Subject Property and, as such, the proposed redevelopment may have a direct impact on lands that are the subject of the BSNA’s focus, including traffic, heritage, shadow, and height and massing compatibility impacts. The Tribunal is satisfied that the BSNA is raising genuine land use planning concerns and, on the consent of the parties, granted Participant status to the BSNA in the subject proceedings.

(b) Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “TCDSB”) – Tomasz Oltarzewski attended this CMC and provided certification that he has written authorization to act as a representative of the TCDSB in the Participant Request form. Mr. Oltarzewski stated that the Subject Property is adjacent to lands of the TCDSB at 146 Isabella Street at which the TCDSB operates Monsignor Fraser College – Isabella Campus. Given this proximity, Mr. Oltarzewski indicated that the TCDSB is seeking Participant status in order to be kept informed on the status of the subject appeals including any changes or alterations to the proposed redevelopment. The Tribunal is satisfied that the TCDSB has a land use planning interest in the subject proceedings and, on the consent of the parties, granted Participant status to the TCDSB in the subject proceedings.

(c) Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2152 (the “TSCC No. 2152”) – Slavisa Mijatovic attended this CMC and stated that, as President and Director of TSCC No. 2152, he has authorization to act as its representative. Mr. Mijatovic stated that TSCC No. 2152 is located at 28 Linden Street and, as such, is in close proximity to the Subject Property and has concerns relating to height and density, traffic, shadow, and pedestrian wind impacts of the proposed redevelopment. The Tribunal is satisfied that TSCC No. 2152 is raising genuine land use planning concerns and, on the consent of the parties, granted Participant status to TSCC No. 2152 in the subject proceedings.

(d) Penny Gyokeres – Ms. Gyokeres attended this CMC and requested Participant status although no written request was received by the Tribunal in advance of the CMC. Ms. Gyokeres stated that she resides at 15 Selby Street which is adjacent to the Subject Property and that she wishes Participant status in her personal capacity in the subject proceedings. Given the proximity of Ms. Gyokeres’ residence to the Subject Property and, on the consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Ms. Gyokeres in the subject proceedings.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEALS

4The Notice of Appeal dated July 11, 2022 filed with the Tribunal refers to the following properties as being the subject of the OPA Appeal and the ZBL Appeal: 47-65 Huntley Street, 1-11 Selby Street, 8-26 Linden Street in the City of Toronto (the “Notice of Appeal Properties”).

5The copy of the (unsigned) Application by the Appellant’s agent Ilana Shteinberg dated October 12, 2021, the City’s staff report dated April 1, 2022 and the Affidavit of Service of Justin Niddrie, the Application Notice Clerk of the City, sworn July 25, 2022, all of which were filed with the Tribunal as part of the Municipal Record, all state that the subject properties are: 47-65 Huntley Street, 2-18, 24 and 26 Linden Street and 1-11 Selby Street in the City of Toronto (the “Application Properties”).

6At the CMC, the Appellant stated that it wished to proceed with the OPA Appeal with respect to 47-65 Huntley Street, 1-11 Selby Street and 2-26 Linden Street and with the ZBL Appeal with respect to 47-65 Huntley Street, 1-11 Selby Street and 2-18, 24 and 26 Linden Street in the City of Toronto. Counsel for the City expressed no concern with this proposed approach.

7As noted above, Catherine Berthiaume is the owner of 20 and 22 Linden Street. Ms. Berthiaume stated in her Request for Party status that there is a “factual error or omission” in the notice that she received as her properties are “not part of the development proposal.” As noted above, Ms. Berthiaume intends to retain and consult legal counsel regarding the OPA Appeal and the ZBL Appeal including, presumably, the Appellant’s proposal that 20 and 22 Linden Street be included in consideration of the OPA Appeal. It is axiomatic that the development proposal itself does not include the 20 and 22 Linden Street properties as the Appellant does not own those properties.

8Given the discrepancies between the Notice of Appeal Properties, the Application Properties, and Ms. Berthiaume’s intention to retain and consult with legal counsel regarding the OPA Appeal and the ZBLA Appeal, the Tribunal will consider the issue of clarification of the properties that are the subject of the Appeals at a second CMC as detailed below.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

9Counsel for the City advised that they require instructions from the City’s Council prior to being in a position to provide submissions regarding the draft Procedural Order including the Issues List. Moreover, there is a new Party to the proceedings (Ms. Berthiaume) who will be given opportunity to participate in the development of the draft Procedural Order to be submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration. In view of the foregoing, a second CMC is ordered as detailed below.

MEDIATION OR SETTLEMENT

10The Parties were encouraged to continue with discussions and information exchange as well as to consider opportunities for mediation, including Tribunal-facilitated mediation, in an effort to resolve or narrow the issues of the Appeals. The Tribunal’s Case Coordinator may be contacted in the event that the Parties wish to schedule mediation facilitated by the Tribunal.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11At the CMC the Tribunal ordered that a second CMC would be scheduled for a one-day event in February, 2023 in order to finalize the Procedural Order including the Issues List in the subject proceedings. The parties were ordered to confer and submit a draft Procedural order including a draft Issues List, at least one week before the second CMC. Moreover, the issue regarding clarification of the properties that are the subject of the OPA Appeal and the ZBL Appeal will be considered at the second CMC.

12Subsequent to the CMC, the second CMC has been scheduled such that the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Parties will submit a draft Procedural Order including Issues List to the Tribunal on or before Monday, January 30, 2023.

b. The second CMC will take place by video on Monday, February 6, 2023 at 10 a.m.

13Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

Access code: 344-779-885

14Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line. +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889. The access code is: 344-779-885

16Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

17The Tribunal so orders and provides these CMC directives for the purposes of the case management of these appeals.

18The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.

19The Tribunal entered the Affidavit of Service of Mina Siskopoulos sworn September 23, 2022 as Exhibit 1 to the CMC. The Notice appended to this Affidavit refers to the Notice of Appeal Properties in both the title of proceedings and the Explanatory Notice with respect to the OPA Appeal and the ZBL Appeal while the Key Map included 2 Linden Street and excluded 20 and 22 Linden Street. The Tribunal is satisfied that this Notice is adequate such that a reasonable person would understand the location and the nature of the proposed redevelopment despite the aforementioned minor discrepancies regarding the property addresses and, as such, no further notice is required or will be given.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.